From what I understand from doctors, thats (conception as a result of rape) really rare. If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But lets assume that maybe that didnt work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.  Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo.

All decent people, including U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin, agree that forcible rape is a heinous crime. Almost all would agree that illegitimate (false) accusations of rape occur  theres the case of the Duke lacrosse players, for example.

All reasonable people, including Todd Akin, agree that pregnancy can result from forcible rape  but there is scientific disagreement on how likely it is.

A 1988 textbook, the second edition of Human Sex and Sexuality by Edwin B. Steen and James H. Price, estimates a 2 percent pregnancy rate. A 2012 textbook, Comprehensive Gynecology, 6th edition, gives an estimate of between 2 percent and 5 percent and states that in the experience of most sexual assault centers, the chance of pregnancy occurring is quite low. Estimates depend on flawed methods, with inevitable biases. An experiment to give an accurate figure is, of course, impossible. And does the estimate really matter to the woman who has been raped? Either she gets pregnant, or she doesnt.

Is the risk of pregnancy lower with forcible rape, and if so, why? Off the cuff, Todd Akin gave a laymans restatement of the point made by some pro-life physicians that the female body has some defense mechanisms against pregnancy in cases of rape.

The process of fertilization, implantation and maintenance of pregnancy is an intricate...

Wouldn’t it be nice if the female body would only allow conception based upon a conscious decision? No unwanted pregnancies, no “accidents” - every child would be planned and wanted.

If I were a Mad Scientist ... that would be my crime against humanity. Some genetic twist such that the default state was sterilization, and that only with a deliberate, conscious action; conception would be possible. Say, a large dose of Vitamin C (cheap, abundant, non-toxic) taken a few hours before conception.

2
posted on 08/28/2012 9:31:21 AM PDT
by Hodar
(A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.- Burroughs)

The percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy is low because the percentage of women who are ovulating at the time of rape is low. The chances of being raped at all, much less at the precise time of ovulation is extremely low. You probably have more risk of getting hit by lightening.

This is so stupid.

You do not need to say any of this to maintain a 100% pro-Life position. It is just not neccessary and it HURTS the pro-Life cause.

You raise a good point. These types of arguments open up Pro-Lifers to the charge that the reason we are 100% Pro-Life is because we don't think women can get pregnant from a “real” rape. We don't have to face the moral dilemma of our position. It completely undermines the cause. We have to say that we understand that rape is traumatic and horrible and can result in pregnancy, but that is no reason to kill the baby.

8
posted on 08/28/2012 9:41:13 AM PDT
by Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")

I listened to an “expert on rape” on NPR last week discussing his remarks. It was an amazing hit piece against him and calling out the absurdity of his claim. What was comical was that she mentioned in passing that she got a lot of calls from doctors who wanted to support what he said but she blew them off.

I thought, “Huh? There are doctors that say there is truth to the ‘shutting down’ comment? That certainly sounds like something a curious person would want to pursue.”

But then, she was not curious. She is a paid attack dog on a liberal and publicly funded “news” source.

Hey partner, I just put the info out there for review and consideration. I really don’t have time or inclination right now for a pissing contest. The article is in the news and will be until the election, unless Akin bails.

I’m not in the mood for whining right now. I get enough liberal whining at work. Just deal with it, or go hang out at huffpo. By the way, you may want to get a checkup, sounds like you may be suffering from “low T.”

13
posted on 08/28/2012 9:48:13 AM PDT
by Perseverando
(Gun control? It's the OBOTS who are filling up prisons for violent crimes, not the Tea Party.)

A 1988 textbook, the second edition of Human Sex and Sexuality by Edwin B. Steen and James H. Price, estimates a 2 percent pregnancy rate. A 2012 textbook, Comprehensive Gynecology, 6th edition, gives an estimate of between 2 percent and 5 percent and states that in the experience of most sexual assault centers, the chance of pregnancy occurring is quite low. Estimates depend on flawed methods, with inevitable biases. An experiment to give an accurate figure is, of course, impossible.

Please read the last line of that quote. "An experiment to give an accurate figure is, of course, impossible." So how exactly is it that WND can title this piece with the words "Akin not far off base.."? For crying out loud if you can't verify those numbers you cannot make the statement that a woman who endures forcible rape isn't likely to get pregnant. There are so many factors involved in the occurence or non-occurence of a pregnancy, that I would guess that the issue of "forcibility" (or legitimacy as Akin would put it) is not very high on the list.

Those politicians and commentators who are calling for Akins head have signaled where their priorities lie.

Hogwash. Perhaps for politicians and commentators on the left that might be true. For those on the right, it is not about preserving the rape or incest exception, is about removing a pro-choice Senator McCaskill, and ensuring a pro-life majority in the Senate.

I have said this before. Thanks to the media, Akin will go down in history as the guy who tried to argue that there is such a thing as legitimate rape. Whether you think that is true or not, it pales in comparison to the reality that by refusing to withdraw and give up the nomination to someone like Sarah Steelman, he may have just facilitated the rape of the Republic.

14
posted on 08/28/2012 9:56:57 AM PDT
by newheart
(At what point does policy become treason?)

Apparently, some people just don’t GET that even ovulating women aren’t necessarily going to become pregnant. As the doctor has stated, there is much complexity to this process. It appears as if it isn’t just progressives who get all emotional over certain issues. Nobody is condoning or supporting rape. I don’t know what Akin really MEANT, but fortunately most rapes do NOT result in pregnancy. And let’s face it, the Choice Crowd just uses this as an excuse. Even if we could have a law that said “only in the case of abortion/incest,” they would NOT go with it. They want abortion on demand...when they want it and where they want it.

Yes. I have met many people in the pro-life community and worked with pro-life causes...nobody EVER have I met that would not agree with the trauma and horror of rape. We just don’t want to perpetrate a second one.

“The percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy is low because the percentage of women who are ovulating at the time of rape is low. The chances of being raped at all, much less at the precise time of ovulation is extremely low. You probably have more risk of getting hit by lightening.

This is so stupid.

You do not need to say any of this to maintain a 100% pro-Life position. It is just not necessary and it HURTS the pro-Life cause.”

That’s the part of all this that’s really frustrating to me. People are making things up and tracking down fringe “scientists” to back an assertion that we don’t need to make. People are going out of their way to make unnecessary arguments that actually end up hurting our cause. Women get pregnant during rapes. It’s relatively rare, but it happens. It doesn’t make any difference for the sake of our arguments whether it happens 4 percent of the time or 2 percent of the time or .2% of the time or whether its marginally less likely to happen than random unprotected sex with a partner. We have to make the same exact argument at the end of the day. Why are people tripping over themselves and resorting to psuedo-science to defend a useless off the cuff remark?

Re: I have said this before. Thanks to the media, Akin will go down in history as the guy who tried to argue that there is such a thing as legitimate rape. Whether you think that is true or not, it pales in comparison to the reality that by refusing to withdraw and give up the nomination to someone like Sarah Steelman, he may have just facilitated the rape of the Republic.

Yep, if we just had the media on our side. Maybe soon, they’ll see the light and take our side. </sarc>

21
posted on 08/28/2012 10:05:05 AM PDT
by Perseverando
(Gun control? It's the OBOTS who are filling up prisons for violent crimes, not the Tea Party.)

Yeah, we’ve seen that before...just putting it out there for consideration...that’s what Akin did, just put it out there for consideration. Brought it up when nobody was talking about it and all he had to say was, I don’t believe in killing the innocent baby if a pregnancy occurs.

Now people are talking about that “theory” that the female body “shuts down” during rape, thereby preventing pregnancy, and they are talking about the term “legitimate rape” uttered by the “genius” Akin.

You have a choice. Contribute to helping that debate over that theory stay at center court, or for your part, dropping it.

You chose.

Your partners in keeping it going are the radical Left...pretty much.

I don’t know who this author is but she’s one of the few non radical Left helping to keep it center court, and I have no use for what she’s doing, either.

Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. The pro-life position during that situation have NOTHING to do with the chances of pregnancy in that situation. We don’t believe the life of the infant who is innocent should be harmed regardless.

I've listened to NPR for years. Yes, they've always been biased. They are left-wing, they like Democrats, they don't like Republicans. This is obvious to anyone who listens. It's a big YAWN.

But perhaps you've experienced what I have experienced over the past year or two -- NPR has gone exponentially into the tank for Obama. Like never before. Blatantly, blatantly anti Republican. Not even a shred of an effort to pretend to be curious about the other side or to provide equal coverage.

It's really quite staggering. And I say that as a long-time listener who has been screaming at them for many years. Now I just sit there with my mouth hanging open.

Exactly right. Do we want the focus to be on the fact that a baby’s life is being terminated, or on some junk science about how a woman’s body shuts down and can’t get pregnant from a “real” rape. That would make it so easy for us on the Pro-Life side. We don’t need an exception for abortion for rape because you can’t get pregnant from a rape. Problem solved!

We are in the fight of our lives in this election, with Obama imposing Socialism and spending us into bankruptcy and some people want to fight him on whether a woman really gets pregnant from a rape.

28
posted on 08/28/2012 10:13:49 AM PDT
by Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")

From what I understand from doctors, thats (conception as a result of rape) really rare. If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But lets assume that maybe that didnt work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.  Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo.

The more that people actually look at the words that Akin spoke, the less offensive they appear. For example how many people since his words were spoken overlooked the above words: "to try". Very few of the histrionic hyperbolizers on this issue unfortunately.

Because when you are fighting against LEGAL and TAXPAYER FUNDED abortions for ANY EXCUSE, and your opponent claims it's ALL ABOUT THE MASSIVE PREGNANCIES FROM RAPE CASES (and doesn't like you limiting it to 'legitimate rape cases'), it is important to find out the truth.

But nobody wants that. Especially the ones who lie about rape, and those who profit from it.

Odd that it seems the same people who own PP clinics also own Porn Websites, Porn movie productions, Strip Clubs and Adult Bookstores. I wonder why?

“Wow...sure wish there was an edit button on here. FR needs to get with the times.”

The lack of an edit button is not a deficiency in the interface, it is missing on purpose. That way, you are held accountable for what you post here, and can not make something that you posted disappear after you start taking some flak for saying it.

They want abortion on demand...when they want it and where they want it.

And keeping it that way keeps MONEY in the pocket of the PP clinic owners. THERE IS BIG MONEY IN IMMORALITY. Just ask the politicians whom the PP clinic owners donate money to. (not that they would admit it)

The real point is no matter how many women get pregnant from rape, is that an excuse for providing Taxpayer funded abortions for (women and the men they had sex with) because they find it inconvenient ?

I think many women took offense (actually, I know they did) about that part of Akin's comments.

The implication they took from it was that WOMEN can choose to shut it down 'consciously'. Those who experienced rape and got pregnant then take think they are being blamed for NOT shutting it down.

Which is erroneous on their part. Getting pregnant is more like a crap shoot. Individual Results are mostly unpredictable. The 'conscious' may guide, but it does not 'control' the body. Your glands generate powerful acids to burn the food you intake, yet you consciously do nothing at all (other than eat) to make this happen.

If you eat food you don't LIKE, your glands don't produce as much of the acid (or the correct acids), and don't digest it as much, preferring to pass it on out as waste. Here again, the BODY takes some DIRECTION from the conscious, but only the BODY decides exactly HOW and WHAT to do about it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.